WTF? Huckabee: The Constitution Should Be Amended To Conform To The Word Of God

[PaulineDisciple]

Only instead of taking a tenth of everything our kings are taking about a half. We've come a long way baby.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

Only instead of taking a tenth of everything our kings are taking about on half. We've come a long way baby.

Yep. People need to wake the fawke up.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

For those of you debating morality, check out the article called "Metaphysics and Meaning" and you will find a well organized and thought out presentation of how you cannot have absolute objective morals without a "metaphysical wildcard". Trust me, it is a very interesting read.

http://presupposetheism.blogspot.com/

 

[WilliamC]

For those of you debating morality, check out the article called "Metaphysics and Meaning" and you will find a well organized and thought out presentation of how you cannot have absolute objective morals without a "metaphysical wildcard". Trust me, it is a very interesting read.

http://presupposetheism.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. At this point I'm just winging it, the format of this forum doesn't really allow for a real debate.

It's always interesting to me that there are some who seem to think that, without their religious beliefs, everyone would be immoral. I suspect it's because without their religious beliefs, they would be immoral.

 

[random]

For those of you debating morality, check out the article called "Metaphysics and Meaning" and you will find a well organized and thought out presentation of how you cannot have absolute objective morals without a "metaphysical wildcard".

I'll look it up -- thanks! But why are we assuming "absolute objective morals" exist? If true, it would mean that

(a) we humans have been wrong on many counts for most of our history, and

(b) we probably still are!!

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Thanks for the link. At this point I'm just winging it, the format of this forum doesn't really allow for a real debate.

It's always interesting to me that there are some who seem to think that, without their religious beliefs, everyone would be immoral. I suspect it's because without their religious beliefs, they would be immoral.

That's not my argument, my argument is that without belief in God, moral laws become unintelligible, which means they don't make sense. Both Christians and non-Christians can act morally, but the question that needs to be answered is who's view of reality makes sense of absolute moral values.

IOW, non-theists must borrow from the theist in order for his moral judgments to make sense. If a non-theist just wants to call this survival instinct, fine just don't call them morals and don't make any moral judgments on anyone and you will at least be a consistent non-theist.

Arguments on this subject can get confusing even for Christians, because too much equivocating goes on with the word morals. Morals for the Christian are absolute and objective. Sometimes there is a dispute about how to properly interpret the moral principles in the Bible, but at least the Christian has on objective standard to use in evaluating moral judgments. Morals for the non-Christian may at one time have never existed, vary based on the time and circumstances and are reduced to electro-chemical sensations in the brain. So the best way to solve this dilemma is to deal with the differences in the definition of the word morals and then you will not talk past each other so much.

For a naturalist (as opposed to a supernaturalist), all that exists may have to obey physical laws, but within the naturalists system of thought where does he get things like moral laws? I have yet to see a naturalist that wants to remain consistent with his naturalism that can have such a thing as moral laws. That is why I provided the link. This article deals with all of the standard arguments that naturalists like to give if they want to be a naturalist and also believe in something called morals.

If you would like to hear a debate where a Christian and a Naturalist flesh-out these issues listen to the Bahnsen/Stein debate that happened back in 1985.

Here is a link,

http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?itemid=5301

 

[Theocrat]

Thanks For Being Arbitrary

Well let's see if we can reach some sort of mutual understanding, yes?



Because we humans have evolved a brain that allows us to look far beyond the present and contemplate the future consenquences of our actions. Personally, I have no such desire to control the lives of others. Do you?

Since I do not have these views, I am opposed to those who do. Are you?



Because it is immoral to steal? I don't need religion to tell me I don't want my property stolen, therefore I can empathize with others when their property is stolen. Even if I am part of the "pack" doing the stealing, so long as this type of behaviour is allowed or encouraged there is nothing to prevent the "pack" from someday turning on me.

Besides, I've never claimed that Muslims are any more or less "wild beasts" than anyone else. Do you?



Methinks you have a different understanding of "survivial of the fittest" than I.

Survivial of the fittest is a tautology. Those that leave the most descendents in the next generation are more fit. For humans, those who leave the most children after they die win, in an evolutionary sense.

No need to automatically assume violence. Sometimes peace and cooperation is a better mechanism for ensuring survivial of your progeny. Nature doesn't care though, all that matters is who has the most children, and grandchildren, and so on.




Well we've come a long way in our intellectual capabilities from our less intelligent ancestors, so we can now see much further into the future than they could. Sometimes it is in our long term best interest not to act on short term impulses. Following a "stupid piece of paper" called "the Constitution" greatly increases the probability of peace and prosperity, which in turn greatly increases the chances that our children will survive and prosper as well, which in turn greatly increases the chances that our extended family will survive and prosper, which in turn greatly increses the chances that our people will survive and prosper, which in turn greatly increases the chances that our species will survive and prosper.

And that's the ultimate goal for me. A free and liberated human society breaking free of the dead-end future of being bound to a single planet, spreading out into the solar system and beyond, forever and ever, until the Universe itself comes to an end.

Sort of like heaven is supposed to be I guess, but without the inconvient fact you have to die to get there.



Well obviously many people do just this, as witnessed by the wars and such that we humans engage in. I just don't feel the need, myself, to take from others by force what I can't get by voluntary exchange. Maybe I'm just weird, but do unto others as I would have them do unto me is just plain common sense.





For me, I do. I assume you decide this for yourself, but I could be mistaken.




Well good luck with that "Theocrat". Those electro-chemical processes also underly a very strong instinct of personal survivial as well, so you'd best sneak up on me or you might not get your wish of making me extinct.

Do you always threaten those you debate with?

Oh, and what's with all the "quotes"? I didn't say most of those things you are quoting, why are you attributing them to me? Simple mistake? Or outright lie?

heh heh.

Your answers are purely subjective, and you have not given any legitimacy as to why they are good and right principles for anyone to live by, given your precommittment to naturalism and humanistic thinking. All you've established is that your view is correct because you believe it to be.

I quoted those phrases simply because they are hypothetical. I didn't threaten you, but what I meant was that your reasoning is dangerous, and thus, needs to be destroyed. I guess I should have phrased it better.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

I'll look it up -- thanks! But why are we assuming "absolute objective morals" exist? If true, it would mean that

(a) we humans have been wrong on many counts for most of our history, and

(b) we probably still are!!

Because if absolute moral values do not exsist, why use the term morals in the first place. Just call them sensations in the brain.

(a) Saying the word "wrong" already assumes that you are using an objective moral standard in which you are using to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action. Can’t you see that?
(b) Given that as humans we have repelled against our creator, we will never be able to achieve perfect moral actions and judgments until God does something about our situation.

 

[WilliamC]

That's not my argument, my argument is that without belief in God, moral laws become unintelligible, which means they don't make sense.

from dictionary.com

mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Where again does it say that a belief in God is required for morality? I'm missing something.

Both Christians and non-Christians can act morally, but the question that needs to be answered is who's view of reality makes sense of absolute moral values.

I don't think that there are absolute moral truths (if I may equate truths with values) in the sense that there are, for instance, absolute mathematical truths.

Morals are a human invention and do not exist in the absence of human interactions.

IOW, non-theists must borrow from the theist in order for his moral judgments to make sense. If a non-theist just wants to call this survival instinct, fine just don't call them morals and don't make any moral judgments on anyone and you will at least be a consistent non-theist.

Again, where does the definition of morals and morality rely on religion? Mine don't. Are you claiming my morals make less sense than yours because I don't base them on supernatural beliefs?

Arguments on this subject can get confusing even for Christians, because too much equivocating goes on with the word morals. Morals for the Christian are absolute and objective. Sometimes there is a dispute about how to properly interpret the moral principles in the Bible, but at least the Christian has on objective standard to use in evaluating moral judgments. Morals for the non-Christian may at one time have never existed, vary based on the time and circumstances and are reduced to electro-chemical sensations in the brain. So the best way to solve this dilemma is to deal with the differences in the definition of the word morals and then you will not talk past each other so much.

Well none of the dictionary definitions (at least non-religious dictionaries) I've seen rely on religion as a precondition for morals. And non-Christians existed for thousands of years before Christ, they had moral beliefs didn't they?

Indeed, a pre-requisite for morals is reason. Without the ability to reason and to predict the cause-and-effect nature of human interactions morals would not have arisen.

For a naturalist (as opposed to a supernaturalist), all that exists may have to obey physical laws, but within the naturalists system of thought where does he get things like moral laws? I have yet to see a naturalist that wants to remain consistent with his naturalism that can have such a thing as moral laws. That is why I provided the link. This article deals with all of the standard arguments that naturalists like to give if they want to be a naturalist and also believe in something called morals.

Morals simply arise from the nature of human interactions. No religion need be invoked.

If you would like to hear a debate where a Christian and a Naturalist flesh-out these issues listen to the Bahnsen/Stein debate that happened back in 1985.

Here is a link,

http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?itemid=5301

Well, again thanks for the link but I can't promise I'll find the time to follow it.

 

[random]

Because if absolute moral values do not exsist, why use the term morals in the first place. Just call them sensations in the brain.

They're obviously more than just sensations in the brain, because they affect behavior in significant ways. Where's the contradiction in viewing morals as a set of socially constructed guidelines that are revised to keep up with the times? So even if it doesn't make sense to speak of absolute morality, it makes sense to speak of the morality of people at a certain place and time. A presidential speech from 100 years ago, for instance, might be viewed as sexist and racist by today's moral standards, but we recognize that it was acceptable for its time.

(a) Saying the word "wrong" already assumes that you are using an objective moral standard in which you are using to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action. Can’t you see that?

Of course, which is why I'm pointing out the fallacy in assuming we were unquestionably right about our erstwhile moral standards -- we recognize that they need to change, because we recognize that they are recognizably poorer by some acceptable measure. This does not automatically mean that there is a unique objective moral standard out there.

(b) Given that as humans we have repelled against our creator, we will never be able to achieve perfect moral actions and judgments until God does something about our situation.

Well, all I can say is that the evidence suggests that our creator is evolution, but we'll have to disagree on that I guess

 

[WilliamC]

Your answers are purely subjective, and you have not given any legitimacy as to why they are good and right principles for anyone to live by, given your precommittment to naturalism and humanistic thinking. All you've established is that your view is correct because you believe it to be.

I quoted those phrases simply because they are hypothetical. I didn't threaten you, but what I meant was that your reasoning is dangerous, and thus, needs to be destroyed. I guess I should have phrased it better.

Your belief in your religion is just as subjective as my belief in my innate moral sense based on my capacity to reason.

I am saddened that you think I am dangerous, I would not automatically have thought this of you just because you use your religion to base your morals on.

But when you come right out and say that I am, and that I should be destroyed, well, you've just identified yourself as a potential threat to all who don't share your collectivist world view. Methinks Ron Paul would be displeased

And yes, I can read, but by questioning my reasoning, you are questioning me. After all, you don't see me questioning your religion do you? No.

I just question your sanity.

With all due respect Theocrat, shouldn't you be a Huckabee suppporter, since you believe morality is dependent upon religion?

 

[Kade]

Your answers are purely subjective, and you have not given any legitimacy as to why they are good and right principles for anyone to live by, given your precommittment to naturalism and humanistic thinking. All you've established is that your view is correct because you believe it to be.

I quoted those phrases simply because they are hypothetical. I didn't threaten you, but what I meant was that your reasoning is dangerous, and thus, needs to be destroyed. I guess I should have phrased it better.

WilliamC and Random are handing you front row tickets to the PWNT concert, one night only.

So utterly flawed is your reasoning, and eventually, your conclusions, that I'm almost tempted to follow your own applied logic in the case.

I won't go there. I like to think that the world is big enough for your disastrous comprehension of society and world views.

Humanistic thinking and naturalism as you call it are just one of many ways to look at the world. A person can be rational, deriving from everyday experiences, an education, family and friends, empirical evidence, and a body of literature and philosophy on the subject to come to a reasonable conclusion on how to behave and think in this world.

Nothing in that situation denotes a "nothing is absolute, so go ahead and kill whoever you want" mentality.

By extension, you have only one admitted source for morality and behavior... an ancient 2,000+ year old text.

Nothing except your own brain tells you that this source is objective.

Nothing. You can't even resort to flawed circular reasoning in this case. Your personal revelations, your personal understanding of this text, translated to your language a mere 400 years ago, has no value and no objectivity associated with it..

I'm sorry man, I'll put my trust and listen to the people who combine all the things and experience in life, before I allow someone like you to make those decisions for me...

 

[WilliamC]

WilliamC and Random are handing you front row tickets to the PWNT concert, one night only.

I was sad though to see Theocrat call for my destruction. What's he and those like him so afraid of? That other people can live a moral life just by thinking for themselves?

 

[random]

WilliamC and Random are handing you front row tickets to the PWNT concert, one night only.

LOL

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Good thing hes not ever going to get elected.

 

[atthegates]

ron HAS to bring this up in debates, interviews, etc

 

[jon_perez]

Watch the video in the link below. Can Ron use this as ammo againsy Huckabee?

Huckabee: The Constitution Should Be Amended To Conform To The Word Of God

Well, to be fair, you have to take it into context. It is clear he was talking about abortion and marriage and how constitutional amendments work with respect to these.

For what it's worth, this is very different from Ron Paul's views that the (National, not States) Constitution has nothing to say on these issues.